By the way you linked the same article twice.
Date of article, 2012.
Lets have a look.
1."Emissions
At the heart of all IPCC projections are "emission scenarios:" low-, mid-, and high-range estimates for future carbon emissions. From these "what if" estimates flow projections for temperature, sea-rise, and more.
Projection: In 2001, the IPCC offered a range of fossil fuel and industrial emissions trends, from a best-case scenario of 7.7 billion tons of carbon released each year by 2010 to a worst-case scenario of 9.7 billion tons.
Reality: In 2010, global emissions from fossil fuels alone totaled 9.1 billion tons of carbon, according to federal government's Earth Systems Research Laboratory."
Are CO2 emissions a positive feedback of CO2?
"Temperature
IPCC models use the emission scenarios discussed above to estimate average global temperature increases by the year 2100.
Projection: The IPCC 2007 assessment projected a worst-case temperature rise of 4.3° to 11.5° Fahrenheit, with a high probability of 7.2°F.
Reality: We are currently on track for a rise of between 6.3° and 13.3°F, with a high probability of an increase of 9.4°F by 2100, according to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Other modelers are getting similar results, including a study published earlier this month by the Global Carbon Project consortium confirming the likelihood of a 9ºF rise."
Lets see the reality outside of the MIT computer model.
So not only temperature isn't a positive feedback of CO2, the actual temperature is way lower than predicted by teh IPCC, opposed to what the article linked claim.
3."Arctic Meltdown
Five years ago, the summer retreat of Arctic ice wildly outdistanced all 18 IPCC computer models, amazing IPCC scientists. It did so again in 2012.
Projection: The IPCC has always confidently projected that the Arctic ice sheet was safe at least until 2050 or well beyond 2100.
Reality: Summer ice is thinning faster than every climate projection, and today scientists predict an ice-free Arctic in years, not decades. Last summer, Arctic sea ice extent plummeted to 1.32 million square miles, the lowest level ever recorded 50 percent below the long-term 1979 to 2000 average.
Why the miss? For scientists, it is increasingly clear that the models are under-predicting the rate of sea ice retreat because they are missing key real-world interactions."
Again I don't see how the Arctic meltdown is a positive feed back of CO2.
Additionally after the low of 2012, 2013 seen a rebound.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
"2013 in review
While the most notable aspect of 2013 was the much higher September ice extent relative to the record low for 2012, extent in 2013 was nevertheless low overall. The maximum extent for 2013 of 15.13 million square kilometers (5.84 million square miles), recorded on 15 March was the sixth lowest over the period of satellite observations. The minimum of 5.10 million square kilometers (1.97 million square miles), recorded on 15 September, was also the sixth lowest.
Continuing a recent pattern, ice extent remained below average over the northern North Atlantic throughout the year. Sea ice retreat began unusually early in the northern Barents and Kara seas. By comparison, sea ice retreated from the Alaskan coast later than in recent years. This occurred despite unusually active late winter fracturing of the ice pack in the region. The fraction of the Arctic sea ice cover comprised of old ice continued to decline.
Summer weather patterns during 2013 were very different from those seen in 2007 to 2012. Overall it was considerably cooler. There was little evidence of the summer dipole pattern seen in recent years. Relatively cool conditions also characterized the Greenland Ice Sheet, and surface melt was much less extensive than for 2012. The year 2013 reminds us that natural climate variability is very strong in the Arctic.
In Antarctica, sea ice extent has been well above average, setting record extents for both the summer minimum and winter maximum. For a long period over the winter and spring months, ice extent was at a record for the modern satellite era. While remarkable, it is important to note that trends in Antarctic sea ice extent remain small (1 to 4%) and are statistically significant relative to inter-annual variation only for the late autumn, winter, and early spring months. Early satellite records (the Nimbus satellite series in 1964, 1966, and 1969) provide further evidence that Antarctic sea ice extent is highly variable; the three years covered by Nimbus show September extents that were both higher and lower than seen in the modern continuous, calibrated satellite record."
And of course, globally 2013 was a year above average for Sea Ice, due to record highs from the Antarctic Ocean.
Lets go to the next feedback.
4."Ice Sheets
Greenland and Antarctica are melting, even though IPCC said in 1995 that they wouldnt be.
Projection: In 1995, IPCC projected "little change in the extent of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets
over the next 50-100 years." In 2007 IPCC embraced a drastic revision: "New data
show
that losses from the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica have very likely contributed to sea level rise over 1993 to 2003."
Reality: Today, ice loss in Greenland and Antarctica is trending at least 100 years ahead of projections compared to IPCC's first three reports."
Erm, doesn't look like a positive feedback.
But lets look at the rest.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120013495_2012013235.pdf
"Mass Gains of the Antarctic Ice Sheet Exceed Losses
Zwally, H. Jay; Li, Jun; Robbins, John; Saba, Jack L.; Yi, Donghui; Brenner, Anita; Bromwich, David
Abstract:
During 2003 to 2008, the mass gain of the Antarctic ice sheet from snow accumulation exceeded the mass loss from ice discharge by 49 Gt/yr (2.5% of input), as derived from ICESat laser measurements of elevation change. The net gain (86 Gt/yr) over the West Antarctic (WA) and East Antarctic ice sheets (WA and EA) is essentially unchanged from revised results for 1992 to 2001 from ERS radar altimetry.
Imbalances in individual drainage systems (DS) are large (-68% to +103% of input), as are temporal changes (-39% to +44%). The recent 90 Gt/yr loss from three DS (Pine Island, Thwaites-Smith, and Marie-Bryd Coast) of WA exceeds the earlier 61 Gt/yr loss, consistent with reports of accelerating ice flow and dynamic thinning. Similarly, the recent 24 Gt/yr loss from three DS in the Antarctic Peninsula (AP) is consistent with glacier accelerations following breakup of the Larsen B and other ice shelves. In contrast, net increases in the five other DS of WA and AP and three of the 16 DS in East Antarctica (EA) exceed the increased losses.
Alternate interpretations of the mass changes driven by accumulation variations are given using results from atmospheric-model re-analysis and a parameterization based on 5% change in accumulation per degree of observed surface temperature change. A slow increase in snowfall with climate warming, consistent with model predictions, may be offsetting increased dynamic losses."
Video presenting the study above. http://vimeo.com/46429608
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n8/full/ngeo1874.html
"Limits in detecting acceleration of ice sheet mass loss due to climate variability
B. Wouters, J. L. Bamber, M. R. van den Broeke, J. T. M. Lenaerts & I. Sasgen
Nature Geoscience (2013) doi:10.1038/ngeo1874
The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been reported to be losing mass at accelerating rates1, 2. If sustained, this accelerating mass loss will result in a global mean sea-level rise by the year 2100 that is approximately 43 cm greater than if a linear trend is assumed2. However, at present there is no scientific consensus on whether these reported accelerations result from variability inherent to the ice-sheetclimate system, or reflect long-term changes and thus permit extrapolation to the future3. Here we compare mass loss trends and accelerations in satellite data collected between January 2003 and September 2012 from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment to long-term mass balance time series from a regional surface mass balance model forced by re-analysis data. We find that the record length of spaceborne gravity observations is too short at present to meaningfully separate long-term accelerations from short-term ice sheet variability. We also find that the detection threshold of mass loss acceleration depends on record length: to detect an acceleration at an accuracy within ±10 Gt yr−2, a period of 10 years or more of observations is required for Antarctica and about 20 years for Greenland. Therefore, climate variability adds uncertainty to extrapolations of future mass loss and sea-level rise, underscoring the need for continuous long-term satellite monitoring."
Reality doesn't seem to compute with article linked, but hey, what do Satellites and Nasa know about the subject? Computer models FTW.
5.Sea-Level Rise
The fate of the world's coastlines has become a classic example of how the IPCC, when confronted with conflicting science, tends to go silent.
Projection: In the 2001 report, the IPCC projected a sea rise of 2 millimeters per year. The worst-case scenario in the 2007 report, which looked mostly at thermal expansion of the oceans as temperatures warmed, called for up to 1.9 feet of sea-level-rise by century's end.
Today: Observed sea-level-rise has averaged 3.3 millimeters per year since 1990. By 2009, various studies that included ice-melt offered drastically higher projections of between 2.4 and 6.2 feet sea level rise by 2100.
Why the miss? IPCC scientists couldn't agree on a value for the contribution melting Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets would add to sea-level rise. So they simply left out the data to reach consensus. Science historian Naomi Oreskes calls this one of IPCC's biggest underestimates "consensus by omission."
Again, this isn't a positive feedback.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_feedback
"Positive feedback is a process in which the effects of a small disturbance on a system include an increase in the magnitude of the perturbation.[1] That is, A produces more of B which in turn produces more of A.[2] In contrast, a system in which the results of a change act to reduce or counteract it has negative feedback.[1][3]"
In the case of AGW a positive feedback would be CO2 causing temperature to raise and the raising temperature would cause the water vapor (the most important GHG) concentration in the atmosphere to raise, which would lead to higher temperatures.
(by the way water vapor concentration hasn't raised)
But again lets go back to this opinion article.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/conten...grace-over-2002–2011-and-its-impact-sea-level
Title Continental mass change from GRACE over 20022011 and its impact on sea level
Publication Type Journal Article
Year of Publication 2012
Authors Baur, O., M. Kuhn, and W. Featherstone
Journal Journal of Geodesy
Date Published 07/2012
ISSN 1432-1394
Keywords grace, sea_level, terrestrial_water
Abstract Present-day continental mass variation as observed by space gravimetry reveals secular mass decline and accumulation. Whereas the former contributes to sea-level rise, the latter results in sea-level fall. As such, consideration of mass accumulation (rather than focussing solely on mass loss) is important for reliable overall estimates of sea-level change. Using data from the Gravity Recovery And Climate Experiment satellite mission, we quantify mass-change trends in 19 continental areas that exhibit a dominant signal. The integrated mass change within these regions is representative of the variation over the whole land areas. During the integer 9-year period of May 2002 to April 2011, GIA-adjusted mass gain and mass loss in these areas contributed, on average, to -(0.7 ± 0.4) mm/year of sea-level fall and + (1.8 ± 0.2) mm/year of sea-level rise; the net effect was + (1.1 ± 0.6) mm/year. Ice melting over Greenland, Iceland, Svalbard, the Canadian Arctic archipelago, Antarctica, Alaska and Patagonia was responsible for + (1.4±0.2) mm/year of the total balance. Hence, land-water mass accumulation compensated about 20 % of the impact of ice-melt water influx to the oceans. In order to assess the impact of geocentre motion, we converted geocentre coordinates derived from satellite laser ranging (SLR) to degree-one geopotential coefficients. We found geocentre motion to introduce small biases to mass-change and sea-level change estimates; its overall effect is + (0.1 ± 0.1) mm/year. This value, however, should be taken with care owing to questionable reliability of secular trends in SLR-derived geocentre coordinates."
So the science points to a sea level rise of 1.7 mm year but the article linked thinks it should be 3.3mm/year since 1990.
Ok.
6."Ocean Acidification
To its credit, the IPCC admits to vast climate change unknowns. Ocean acidification is one such impact.
Projection: Unmentioned as a threat in the 1990, 1995 and 2001 IPCC reports. First recognized in 2007, when IPCC projected acidification of between 0.14 and 0.35 pH units by 2100. While the effects of observed ocean acidification on the marine biosphere are as yet undocumented, said the report, the progressive acidification of oceans is expected to have negative impacts on marine shell-forming organisms (e.g. corals) and their dependent species.
Reality: The worlds oceans absorb about a quarter of the carbon dioxide humans release annually into the atmosphere. Since the start of the Industrial Revolution, the pH of surface ocean waters has fallen by 0.1 pH units. Since the pH scale is logarithmic, this change represents a stunning 30 percent increase in acidity.
Why the miss? Scientists didnt have the data. They began studying acidification by the late 1990s, but there werent many papers on the topic until mid-2000, missing the submission deadline for IPCCs 2001 report. Especially alarming are new findings that ocean temperatures and currents are causing parts of the seas to become acidic far faster than expected, threatening oysters and other shellfish."
Again not a positive feedback.
First lets begin to say that the oceans are basic with a pH of around 8.0-8.2.
Second the oceans are a large buffer.
Third rivers pH is lower and significantly so.
Fourth there is no reliably data and instruments to measure ocean pH.
http://oceanhealth.xprize.org/competition-details/overview
"The Market Failure
While ocean acidification is well documented in a few temperate ocean waters, little is known in high latitudes, coastal areas and the deep sea, and most current pH sensor technologies are too costly, imprecise, or unstable to allow for sufficient knowledge on the state of ocean acidification."
Fifth shell organisms evolved 250 millions ago when the CO2 concentration was far higher than today and had no problems developing shells.
Sixth no study (afaik) was able to dissolve shell organisms by only inserting CO2 in ocean water.
7."Thawing Tundra
Some carbon-cycle feedbacks that could vastly amplify climate change especially a massive release of carbon and methane from thawing permafrost are extremely hard to model.
Projection: In 2007, IPCC reported with high confidence that methane emissions from tundra
and permafrost have accelerated in the past two decades, and are likely to accelerate further. However, the IPCC offered no projections regarding permafrost melt.
Reality: Scientists estimate that the worlds permafrost holds 1.5 trillion tons of frozen carbon. That worries scientists: The Arctic is warming faster than anywhere else on earth, and researchers are seeing soil temperatures climb rapidly, too. Some permafrost degradation is already occurring.
Large-scale tundra wildfires in 2012 added to the concern.
Why the miss? This is controversial science, with some researchers saying the Arctic tundra is stable, others saying it will defrost only over long periods of time, and still more convinced we are on the verge of a tipping point, where the tundra thaws rapidly and catastrophically. A major 2005 study, for instance, warned that the entire top 11 feet of global permafrost could disappear by century's end, with potentially cataclysmic climate impacts. "
Finally a positive feedback example. Unfortunately it returns as a hand of nothing and considering that the temperature is raising slower than expected even though that CO2 concentration is rising more than expected, this positive feedback is nowhere to be seen.
8."Tipping points
The IPCC has been silent on tipping points non-linear "light switch" moments when the climate system abruptly shifts from one paradigm to another.
Projection: IPCC has made no projections regarding tipping-point thresholds.
Reality: The scientific jury is still out as to whether we have reached any climate thresholds a point of no return for, say, an ice-free Arctic, a Greenland meltdown, the slowing of the North Atlantic Ocean circulation, or permanent changes in large-scale weather patterns like the jet stream, El Niño or monsoons. The trouble with tipping points is theyre hard to spot until youve passed one.
Why the miss? Blame the computers: These non-linear events are notoriously hard to model. But with scientists recognizing the sizeable threat tipping points represent, they will be including some projections in the 2013-14 assessment."
Erm, something.
I'm sorry but I think you linked twice to the wrong place, because your links show no positive feedback mechanisms surfacing.
Facebook
Twitter